Office Staff

Oliver Heald: But is not the blunt truth that the Deputy Prime Minister's principal role is, as his party chairman said, as a political broker—a sort of marriage guidance counsellor between No. 10 and No. 11? Will he assure us that the civil servants in his office will not be dragged into those squabbles, and should not the Labour party being paying the bill?

John Prescott: I recommend that the hon. Gentleman reads the Select Committee reports from when Lord Heseltine was giving evidence on the definition of the Deputy Prime Minister's role. It was made absolutely clear that civil servants were used as cheerleaders under his office. That had to be changed. It is not the intention to use civil servants in that way. Let me be clear that the office that Lord Heseltine defined is exactly the one I accepted. He also said in his evidence that he chaired a number of Cabinet Committees. That is true, but I will be chairing two or three times as many as he did. He also said:
	"I have the responsibility for the presentation of Government policy".
	Within two years, we had a majority of 169—it does not sound as though his presentation worked too well.

William Cash: The Minister has walked into a bit of a trap, if I may say so. Given the vast amount of European over-regulation that accumulates as burdens on business, will he explain why his Bill does not include an express override of the European Communities (Amendment) 1993 so that the judiciary can ensure that we do not have the burdens on business that European legislation provide?

John Prescott: For the record—though the hon. Gentleman would not know much about the record—I have one house and one car, which is 10 years old. I suspect that most Conservative Members have got much more than that.
	With regard to pensions, we should be concerned about asking the pensioners themselves what they think about 2 million of them being forced into poverty conditions and not having enough money to heat their homes. They are the people to make judgments. The hon. Gentleman talks about private pension funds and what my right hon. Friend said, but we had to introduce the pension protection fund and provide £400 million to help those who had failed to get what they deserved from their private pension funds.

Piara S Khabra: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 17th May.

David Cameron: On behalf of the Opposition, may I add our sympathies to what the Prime Minister said about the soldiers who gave their lives in Iraq. Our thoughts should be with their families for what they have done on our behalf.
	Two weeks ago the Prime Minister said that automatic deportation would apply to any foreign national
	"convicted of an imprisonable offence".—[ Official Report,3 May 2006; Vol. 445, c. 960.]
	Last week he said it would apply to those actually imprisoned. This week the Home Secretary said that automatic deportation would now apply only to foreign nationals serving a "significant" jail term. Which is it?

George Osborne: You are quoting Michael Howard.

Tony Blair: First, the announcement of the loss of jobs at Ellesmere Port is deeply disappointing. I commit the Government and the Northwest regional development agency to work with the company and the trade unions to support those facing redundancy. As my hon. Friend rightly implies, the key campaign is to get the new Astra model built at Ellesmere Port. The Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry are at Ellesmere Port today, and I will seek an early opportunity to talk to GM's chief executive, Rick Wagoner, to put the case for Ellesmere Port and to offer any UK Government assistance that is appropriate. The work force there are magnificent, they do a great job, I know that they would be worthy of securing the new Astra model, and I very much hope that they do so.

WATER SHORTAGES

Ian Pearson: The UK has seen below average rainfall for 19 months. In particular, the south-east has been much drier than during the notable drought of 1974-76. The Environment Agency believes that the droughtin the south-east has the potential to be the worst for 100 years. Water planning is based on the principle that each water company has a water resource plan looking ahead 25 years. Water companies also have a drought plan setting out how they will continue to meet their duties during a water shortage.
	I recognise the public concern about leakage rates. Ofwat, the economic regulator, sets targets for leakage and over the past 10 years, leakage rates have reduced by 30 per cent. However, there is more to be done, particularly by some companies. Since privatisation, water companies have invested £55 billion in water and sewerage assets, and more than £3.5 billion in 2004-05 alone.
	As the House will be aware, water companies in the south-east have introduced hosepipe and sprinkler bans to manage the drought situation. The recent decision to approve the Sutton and East Surrey Water drought order application is the next step beyond a hosepipe ban. I am considering the independent inspector's reports following the hearings on the drought order applications made by Southern Water and Mid Kent Water.

Ian Pearson: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is absolutely right to say that the vast majority of the housing stock for 2030 is already in place in the United Kingdom and that new-build plans account for only a tiny fraction of the potential additional water usage in the future. We need to focus on water efficiency in households, just as we need to focus more on energy efficiency. There is a range of ways in which consumers can use water more wisely—for example, with dual-flush toilets. The simple fact is that new house development will be far more water and energy efficient than the current housing stock. The more that we can do to bring the current housing stock up to the best environmental standards for both health and water efficiency reasons, the better for all concerned.

Andrew MacKay: But even so, does the Minister accept that my constituents will find it inconceivable that the water companies can cope with the huge number of extra houses being foisted on the south-east when they cannot cope at all with the current drought? No one will believe him.

Kelvin Hopkins: First, may I welcome my hon. Friend to his new post?
	Reports suggest that leakages in Britain are among the worst in Europe, and perhaps only two countries, one of which is Bulgaria, have a worse record. Is that not simply a consequence of a failure to invest by the water industry over a long period? Is it not a direct consequence of the Tories' privatisation of the water sector? Have not the private companies been simply sweating—I use that word advisedly—the assets built up over generations of public investment before they were privatised? Is it not time that the state again took a direct role in water supply, to guarantee sufficient and secure water provision for the future?

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (DEREGULATION)

David Hanson: That is a similar point to the one that was made by the hon. Member for Belfast, North. I intend in broad terms today to get the support of the House for a sustainable development strategy for Northern Ireland and for the measure to place a duty on local authorities to contribute to that. Having inherited this post some seven days ago, I want to consult on how that duty will operate in practice, what the relationship is and what the targets are. I want to examine that in detail so that we can get collective ownership of those targets, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
	I hope that it will be of help to the hon. Gentleman when I say that the Northern Ireland Local Government Association has been an active stakeholder and participant in helping to draw up the strategy that the Secretary of State launched on 9 May. The councils' living more sustainably working group has also been involved in the consultations to get us where we are. However, more guidance is needed. Today, I hope that the House will support the principle of sustainable development generally.
	The Government take the whole question of the shared future programme and the "A Shared Future" document extremely seriously. I hope that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) knows that the Secretary of State in the past fortnight has relaunched that document. It is our intention, while we hold office in the direct rule Administration, to ensure not only that are we advocates for a shared future in Northern Ireland as a whole but that we look in detail at how to implement "A Shared Future" in government in Northern Ireland.
	With the mini re-shuffle in Northern Ireland, I assumed responsibility for "A Shared Future" some eight days ago. I intend as part of the ministerial team to look at how, in what I hope will be short time I hold this post in the Assembly, to drive forward that agenda to meet our objectives. We may disagree on this, but I believe that we cannot legislate for "A Shared Future" in that way but that we need to examine how we can put it into practice in due course. I will look at the strategy and take that on board. I am happy to discuss with the hon. Gentleman outside this place his party's views on that matter, as I am with any others, but the whole ministerial team is committed to ensuring that "A Shared Future" operates in practice.
	The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) is right that Wales has Executive power vested in the National Assembly. As I have said, the new clause will allow for further public authorities to be designated for the purposes of the duty. I reconfirm that it is open to the Northern Ireland Assembly in due course to make those requests accordingly. I hope that the Assembly has an early opportunity to do that. I hope that hon. Members can support the new clause. I take on board the points that have been made, but hope that hon. Members will support it and await the guidance in due course.

New Clause 3
	 — 
	CONDITIONS FOR DEVOLVING POLICING AND JUSTICE MATTERS

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 2 to 8.
	Amendment No. 24, in page 23, line 32 [Schedule 2], at end insert
	'provided that they have first secured the consent of the nominating officer of the political party to which each member belongs.'.
	Amendment No. 14, in page 23, line 34 [Schedule 2], leave out from 'passed' to end of line 38 and insert 'with cross-community support'.
	Amendment No. 26, in page 23, line 39 [Schedule 2], at end insert—
	'(5) Standing orders may make further provision for the nomination and election referred to in subsections (3) and (4).'.
	Amendment No. 27, in page 24, line 19 [Schedule 2], at end insert—
	'or
	'(d) he is dismissed by the nominating officer whose consent was required for his nomination under subsection (3) (or that officer's successor) and the Presiding Officer is notified of his dismissal.'.
	Amendment No. 30, in page 24, line 25 [Schedule 2], at end insert—
	'(10A) Where—
	(a) relevant Ministerial offices have been filled by applying sub-paragraph 10(b); and
	(b) a relevant Ministerial office is filled by a member of a different political party
	all Northern Ireland Ministers shall cease to hold office and their Ministerial offices shall be filled by applying subsections (2) to (6) of section 18 within a period specified by standing orders.
	(12) But where—
	(a) a relevant minister was dismissed by the nominating officer who nominated him (or his successor); and
	(b) the nominating officer of that party refuses to consent to the nomination by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of every member of his party within a period specified in standing orders,
	sub-paragraph (10A) shall not apply.'.
	Government amendment No. 9
	Amendment No. 15, in page 26, line 29 [Schedule 2], leave out from 'passed' to end of line 33 and insert 'with cross-community support'.
	Government amendments Nos. 10 to 12.

David Hanson: The Government new clause and amendments were tabled after our helpful discussions in Committee and on Second Reading and they deal with issues relating to the devolution of policing and justice functions. I shall speak first to new clause 3, then consider Government amendments Nos. 5, 6, 8,9 and 11, which make related and consequential changes.
	It has always been the Government's position that policing and justice can be devolved on a sustainable basis only with broad cross-community support. We have put in place a triple lock, as the Assembly must wish to have devolution, the Secretary of State must wish to agree it on behalf of the Government, and the House of Commons must approve it. Consistent with that position, it is our view that the support of the majority of sections of the community in Northern Ireland is essential if the devolution of policing and justice is to succeed. The amendments give legal effect to that position. New subsection (2A) inserted into section 4 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 by new clause 3(3) accordingly provides that the Secretary of State shall not introduce an order to devolve policing and justice unless a number of caveats are in place.
	First, the Assembly motion asking the Secretary of State to do that must be tabled by the First and Deputy First Ministers acting jointly. Secondly, that motion should receive support in the Assembly from a majority of designated Unionists and a majority of designated nationalists. Having listened to the discussion, it is self-evident that unless the Assembly has that support it is not worth considering forcing devolution on it. The fact that under the amendments the First and Deputy First Ministers would have to introduce a proposal shows that a majority of community support is necessary. We want a majority of nationalists and designated Unionists to support it, too. New clause 5 (5) introduces a drafting change to that effect.
	On Government amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7 and 10, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have made clear during the passage of the Bill it is the Government's intention to ensure that the Assembly has the greatest possible flexibility to determine the departmental models to oversee policing and justice.

David Hanson: If the hon. Lady wishes to be pedantic, perhaps it is a quadruple lock. The Secretary of State and I seek a situation in which devolution of policing and criminal justice takes place following a cross-community vote among nationalists and Unionists in the Assembly in support of the proposal, which is then considered by my right hon. Friend or his successor, who agree to recommend it as Government policy to the House of Commons, which must support it before it can take place. That is a triple lock. The hon. Lady wishes to make it a quadruple lock because there is a two-part assessment when the Assembly reaches its decision. However, I put it in the following terms: the Assembly; the Secretary of State; the House of Commons.

David Hanson: Again, the purpose of the measure is quite simple. However we describe it, it is a simple process. The Assembly must submit a request to the Secretary of State asking for the devolution of policing. The Secretary of State must agree—presumably, that will involve discussion with Cabinet colleagues because he must make an assessment or political judgment as to whether he wishes to recommend it—and he must make a recommendation at the Dispatch Box to the House of Commons, which must support it before it can take place. That is a simple, straightforward process, as the Assembly, the Secretary of State and the House of Commons must secure approval for the proposal. I am certainly happy with our position, which I discussed with individuals when considering whether to table the amts. I have tried to facilitate a procedure so that, should the Assembly wish to do so, it can advance the proposal in due course.

David Hanson: The hon. Lady will know that there was discussion of these matters in Committee and the Government have reflected on that. The new clause to allow the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to propose that change is important, but it does not change the balance of the argument. It would be strange if the Assembly voted to devolve criminal justice and policing, but the First Minister and Deputy First Minister were against it, as they will presumably be the leaders of the largest parties in the Assembly.
	We have tabled the amendments and new clauses to support the wish of the Assembly for such devolution. I say again to all hon. Members that the Assembly must decide, the Secretary of State must agree and the House of Commons must support that process. That may happen at some point when the Assembly forms its Executive.
	I shall make progress. During the passage of the Bill, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have made clear the Government's intention to make possible a range of departmental models for devolution of policing and criminal justice. Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7 and 10 support that objective. We discussed the Northern Ireland Act 1998 in detail in Committee and we considered a range of models in the Act for the devolution of policing and criminal justice. Clause 16 of the 1998 Act permits the Assembly to create various forms of departmental responsibility. We have sought to broaden that choice through consultation on the Bill.
	As hon. Members may recall, during the debate in the Committee of the whole House on 20 April, my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) suggested that notwithstanding the provisions of the Bill, there was at least one further model that had not been considered—a department of policing and justice that might be in the charge of a single Minister elected on a cross-community resolution of the Assembly, rather than appointed under the d'Hondt process.
	I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that his words of wisdom have been listened to by the Government and we have tabled an amendment which, I hope, meets the objectives that he set in the debate on 20 April. He will know, therefore, that on occasion the Government act in a comradely fashion with his party. I cannot help him on every occasion, but when I can I am pleased to do so, and I will labour the point to keep him on his toes. Amendment No. 3 provides for the new model. Amendments Nos. 2, 10 and 7 reflect that addition.
	Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 were tabled by the Liberal Democrats. In Committee I undertook to reflect on the points made by the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) at the time. The Government's view is that a department of policing and justice with joint or rotating Ministers would bear a strong similarity to the office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and correspondingly the requirement for cross-community support for those Ministers, set out in the Bill, reflects that for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.
	On reflection, I have concerns that that is a move away from the requirement for parallel consent from both sides of the community. Having considered the matter in detail, I have concluded that that support for any nomination for ministerial appointment to a department with devolved policing and justice functions that makes use of one of the models provided for in the Bill should continue to be required to secure parallel consent. This may disappoint the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), but it is important that we keep to the original principles.
	As drafted, the Bill requires Ministers under the alternative models for the Department of Policing and Justice to be nominated by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and for their nomination to be approved by the Assembly with the support of a majority of Members. The amendments give effect to that, on the basis of the 50:50:50 model.
	The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle would remove the responsibility for nomination and subsequent dismissal from the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and put it in the hands of party nominating officers. I do not believe that to be workable or consistent. I am sorry that I cannot help my hon. Friend on this occasion and I ask him to withdraw the amendments, given that I have been able to help him in other respects during consideration of the Bill.
	I hope that Members in all parts of the House will recognise that the amendments are the result of amendments tabled but not debated, discussion in Committee and representations made to me from all parts of the House relating to the devolution of criminal justice and policing. I commend the Government new clauses and amendments to the House and ask Liberal Democrat and Social Democratic and Labour party Members to recognise that I have moved some way and to withdraw their amendments accordingly.

Lembit �pik: I listened with interest to the Minister and accept that he has provided us with a clear exposition of where he stands. He rightly highlighted the issues that we address in our amendments Nos. 14 and 15. The amendments were tabled in Committee, and in his reply the Minister said that he would reflect on them and discuss with political parties whether they wanted some flexibility in the voting arrangements. We appreciate that there has not been much time between Committee and Report for such discussions, but we re-tabled the amendments to give the Minister an opportunity to update the House. He has given his view, but I infer that he has not explicitly spoken with the parties.
	I remind the Minister of his words. He said in Committee:
	I am reasonably flexible in the matter. Although 50:50:50 was our original choice, the amendment would mean that there were two methods.
	He is right about that. He continued:
	I have not discussed the election of a criminal justice Minister with any of the parties in Northern Ireland to take their views about what would be acceptable to the Assembly, but I am reasonably content to look into that possibility.[ Official Report, 20 April 2006; Vol. 445, c. 297.]
	It is a small gripe, but I believe that the Government having imposed the timetable on us, the Minister was obliged to undertake some consultation, and I am disappointed that he has not done so.

Lembit �pik: We differ on the judgment about the electoral system, but I shall not repeat the argument because the Minister has made it clear that he will not accept our suggestions, which is fair enough. We will not push our amendment to a vote on that issue, which simply involves a difference of view. My point concerns the process. The Minister knows about the frustrations when the Government impose and do not consult. Without being too heavy on him, I wish that the Government would be more assiduous in going through the consultation process after they have inferred in this Chamber that they will do so. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board, notwithstanding the difference of view on specific amendments.
	New clause 3 seems to insist that the devolution of policing and justice functions can occur only when the motion before the Assembly is laid jointly by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. That makes sense for the reasons that the Minister has outlined, as does the requirement that the motion should be approved by a majority within the Assembly as a whole.
	The rest of the amendments seem to be largely technical. In his response to our brief debate, I hope that the Minister will clarify my concern about Government amendments Nos. 4 and 6. Does the consequence of those amendments limit the ability of the political parties to decide the shape of any Department of Policing and Justice, and do those amendments mean that there can be only one Department that incorporates policing and justice functions?

Lembit �pik: The Minister's intervention is helpful, because the record will show that those amendments do not prohibit the setting up of separate Departments for policing and for justice, if that is what the Assembly wants to do. I have no reason to think that the Assembly wants to do that, but it would be in keeping with the spirit of giving the Assembly the right to organise its devolved processes not to preclude that option. I thank the Minister for that clarification.
	The SDLP amendments seem to make sense. One might think that it goes without saying that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister would not nominate a person for ministerial office if that person's political party did not want them to take up that position. Given the history of politics in Northern Ireland, however, we know that anything is possible. I look forward to further clarification from the SDLP spokesman, whoever he may be, but I am sympathetic to the common-sense position adopted in the amendments because, as we all know from painful experience, when it comes to some matters relating to Northern Ireland legislation, sense is not common.

Mark Durkan: As the hon. Gentleman has said, that also happened in the previous Assembly with the post of Speaker, when issues went on inside a particular party. On that occasion, Caesar did in Brutus, but such events have occurred for calculated reasons.
	We must remember that the Bill provides that a ministerial appointment will count against the party whose member is appointed a Minister for the purposes of the d'Hondt system. The parties would therefore be denied their own legitimate and proper choice under the d'Hondt system by virtue of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister perhaps selecting somebody from another party without the agreement of that party or that party's leader through the use of the parallel consent mechanism. That is fundamentally unfair, and it goes against the grain of the Good Friday agreement in terms of inclusion and the choices that rest with parties. It is a return to the principle of parties not being able to vet or veto each other's appointments.
	Amendment No. 24 seeks to address that matter by stating that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister may nominate a person for the justice portfolio only with the consent of that party's nominating officer. So, contrary to what the Minister has said, we are not in the business of denying the First Minister and Deputy First Minister any role in the matter. We say that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister should only be able to nominate for the police and justice portfolio with the consent of a party's nominating officer, given that that party's d'Hondt quota will be affected and that its ranking of choice under d'Hondt will be materially affected.
	Amendments Nos. 24, 26, 27 and 30 apply only to joint Ministers, as they are currently drafted. However, I contend that the same approach should logically apply to rotating Ministers, for which the Bill provides, or, indeed, to a Minister elected with parallel consent, which is covered by the Government amendment that the Minister discussed earlier.
	Amendment No. 26 makes a consequential amendment to allow the Standing Orders to permit the nomination and election of joint justice Ministers. That would be helpful to ensure clarity on procedure in the same way as the Standing Orders for the Assembly under the Northern Ireland Act 2006 provide helpful procedural clarity on, for instance, how to manage if two sets of people are proposed as joint Ministers.
	Amendments Nos. 27 and 30 address the dismissal of a Minister. As has been said, Ministers appointed under the d'Hondt system are appointed by, and may be dismissed by, the leader of their partythe Assembly may also choose to exclude them. Under the Bill, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister have the sole power of dismissal, although holding ministerial office counts towards a party's d'Hondt entitlements. Even more significantly, the Bill is wide open for abuse, because it specifies that holding office as a junior Minister counts towards a party's entitlements under d'Hondt.
	The First Minister and Deputy First Minister could appoint a member of another party, using the votes of their own parties under parallel consent to secure that appointment, only to dismiss them and vote in a member of one of their own parties instead after the d'Hondt system had been run for other ministerial offices.

Mark Durkan: I am certainly not afraid of that. I have doubts and worries about other parties, given the rate at which the DUP has been able to inveigle defections and all sorts of disloyal activities in other parties. That is where I have my doubts. I would also note the Alliance party's occasional proclivities for running after a post that might happen to become available.
	We need to ensure that nothing in the Bill creates new difficulties and unfairnesses. The Bill as it stands, even with the Government amendments, does create an unfairness. As things stand, the First and Deputy First Ministers can bring about a situation whereby their parties hold the first ministerial and deputy first ministerial offices and the justice ministerial office, as well as other ordinary ministerial offices, as though they did not hold the justice ministerial office. If the Government are serious in their intent to ensure that the justice ministerial post counts properly towards d'Hondt and does not materially affect or prejudice any party's d'Hondt entitlement, they should be prepared to accept amendments Nos. 27 and 30, which seek to rectify that possibility.
	Amendment No. 27 would strike a compromise that is contrary to the Minister's suggestion that we are trying to strip the First and Deputy First Ministers of any role in the appointment of justice Ministers. It would provide that the nominating officer of a party can dismiss a justice Minister from his party, just as the party leader can for ministerial offices allocated under d'Hondt. By way of compromise, we would also allow the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to dismiss a justice Minister, even one of another party. However, amendment No. 30 would provide an important safeguard. If they dismiss a justice Minister and replace him with a Minister from a different political party from that of the outgoing justice Minister, d'Hondt has to be re-run for ordinary ministerial offices as well. That would build in a protection against abuse by removing the temptation for itlikewise, for example, if the Assembly or the First Minister and Deputy First Minister refused to support the replacement that a party leader would want where a vacancy arose because of the resignation or death of a justice Minister from that party.
	However, I accept that it is important to guard against a party leader trying to abuse the system by then sacking his own justice Minister and refusing to allow the First Minister and Deputy First Ministerto nominate anybody at all from their party so as to trigger a rerun of d'Hondt for all ministerial offices. I am seeking to prevent the temptation for abuse and tactical manoeuvres by the First and Deputy First Ministers and by party leaders.

Mark Durkan: In that case, I would ask the Minister why we are dealing with any of this legislation at all. We are dealing with issues of permutations. When other parties are insisting that they need safeguards and triple locks to protect them from all sorts of perils, is it not right that we who are here to legislate on these matters should ensure that we do that properly, so as to prevent unintended problems and contrary effects to those that the Government claim to intend?
	We have tabled amendments that would avoid re-running d'Hondt on a tactical basis by parties. That would mean that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister could nominate a person from a different political party, without the inconvenience of re-running d'Hondt for ordinary ministerial offices. I ask the Government to reflect on our amendments, even if they do not accept them now. Perhaps they will consider introducing their own amendments elsewhere that would have a similar effect. They would protect the integrity of what the Government say that the Bill is trying to achieve, namely to provide arrangements for a menu of options from which to appoint justice Ministers without doing any damage to the basic architecture of the inclusion formula in the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
	I also want to express our support for the Liberal Democrat amendments Nos. 14 and 15. They would make it clear that justice Ministers could be elected by cross-community consent, in contrast to the present requirement for parallel consent alone. The Good Friday agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998 provide for only two occasions on which parallel consent alone is required: the election of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and in the context of the special equality procedure. We see no reason why that especially high threshold should be required solely in those circumstances.
	We are obviously not content with the Government's new clause 3 and consequential amendments Nos. 5, 6, 8 and 9. Section 4 of the Northern Ireland Act already states that devolution of any additional functions cannot occur without prior Assembly cross-community support. However, new clause 3 proposes that additional requirements be introduced only for policing and justice. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister must pray that the matter be devolved, and a vote by parallel consentand only by parallel consentmust also take place. For no good reason, that is being required here. But perhaps there is a bad reason, and perhaps this goes back to previous deals and understandings.
	After the comprehensive agreement in 2004, the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) boasted:
	The Comprehensive Agreement is merely the core of the proposals which we have accepted but is also augmented by over a hundred clarificatory answers, notes and letters.
	The Government have refused to publish those documents, despite their assurance to the House on18 April that
	the talks will be genuinely all-party. Whatever happened in the past, and whatever the arguments about that are, given the distrust that has set in over the past couple of years, we cannot proceed without all-party, inclusive negotiations.[ Official Report, 18 April 2006; Vol. 445, c. 27.]
	How inclusive are more than 100 side deals and secret understandings with the DUP and, presumably,Sinn Fein that the rest of us are not allowed to see? And are these proposals the by-product of them? There seem to be clear indications that that is the case. Martin McGuinness is on public record as saying that the whole issue of how the devolution of justice and policing was to be dealt with was all done and dusted in the negotiations in the run-up to the comprehensive agreement. Are we now seeing the result of all that doing and dusting here in the legislation? Is that why the Minister cannot accept even a straightforward amendment such as the one tabled by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik)?

Peter Robinson: I bet that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) spends his leisure moments watching The X Files or perhaps Trainspotting. He has taken us beyond what my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) described in terms of a situation that is difficult to comprehend, with an enabling Bill and the particulars of unforeseen circumstances. Instead, the hon. Member for Foyle was able to offer us a series of possibilities. I intervened on him to point out that the d'Hondt mechanism would not be affected in all circumstances, but given that he was able to go on at such length on matters that will not necessarily occur, I was afraid to intervene further to tell him what those circumstances might be, as he could have gone on for at least another half-hour.
	The reality is that there are circumstances in which policing and justice can be devolved without d'Hondt being affected. If the train-spotter who prepared the script for the hon. Gentleman has not noticed that, however, I will not draw it to his attention until much later, even if he asks me. I will put it alongside the more than 100 understandings that we had. Perhaps he can get one of his colleagues to make a written request for it under freedom of information.

Peter Robinson: I do not need to read the schedules. It is clear from the Bill that there are circumstances in which d'Hondt would be affected. If the hon. Gentleman really believes, however, that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will put the most important and powerful role in the land in the possession of a member of another political party, I am afraid that he has not been involved in the same kind of politics as me. No First Minister and Deputy First Minister are likely to hand over the role of policing and justice Minister to someone in an opposition party. That is just not real politics.
	However, I welcome some of the amendments put forward by the Government, especially new clause 3 and amendment No. 3, which are useful.

Peter Robinson: It is actually a critical issue, because the way that policing and justice powers will be devolved to Northern Ireland will put such powers in the hands of the Assembly, where there is now a mountain to climb. The criteria that we have consistently adopted is that we could not be in government with those who are linked to parties involved in paramilitary and criminal activity. Out of the blue, the hon. Lady's party has decided to put itself in that position, having condemned Sinn Fein [Interruption.] I will give way to her if she wants to speak on the issue.

Lady Hermon: That is enormously kind and generous of the hon. Gentleman. He and his colleagues will know that I do not, unlike them, hold a dual mandate. I am not a Member of the Assembly, but only of this House. I was not a party to the decision taken by my fellow colleagues in the Assembly. That decision caused me deep distress. However, having said that, I believe, having had a long conversation last night with my party leader, Sir Reg Empey, that this might allow him an opportunity to exercise leverage on loyalist paramilitaries. It was perfectly obvious that the Northern Ireland Office has no strategy to bring about loyalist decommissioning. If Sir Reg is able to establish now a policy to bring about loyalist decommissioning and prevent any more murders, such as that of Lisa Dorrian in my constituency, that would be worth while. Apart from that, I am deeply distressed by the decision of my party colleagues.

Peter Robinson: My right hon. Friend is correct, and that is the position that the Government of the Irish Republic adopt to this day. Indeed, it is one reason that the Justice Minister of the Irish Republic, Michael McDowell, gave for not countenancing Sinn Fein's participation in government. He said that, while they retain a link with the Provisional IRA, one could not have two armies in the Irish Republic. However, there is a certain hypocrisy on the part of the Irish Republic, in that they are expecting us to do something that they are not prepared to do.
	The intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) reminds me of  The Irish Times article by Dermot Aherne, which was immensely insulting to the community in Northern Ireland. In essence, he said that these principles can be applied to us, but that they certainly cannot be applied in the Irish Republic. The attitude was, Anything is good enough for those people up there. The general attitude adopted by the Irish Republic's foreign affairs Minister seemed to be, We cannot have Sinn Fein in government, but those people up there should have them because they do not have a normal society. They could not allow Sinn Fein to have any responsibility for policing but, of course, we can. However, if we are coming out of conflict, the need for stable institutions is all the greater. It is all the more important for people to have confidence in our security forces, the police and the justice system.
	So policing is a critical issue, which is why the Minister, in providing these enabling powers, should not get carried away with the prospect of their being taken up immediately. His offer might lie on the table for some time. That said, I do welcome the further option that he provides in amendment No. 3, which allows the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to create a policing and justice departmentset up by their nomineeif the proposal is supported by a cross-community vote in the Assembly. That is another option; however, no one knows whether that or any of the other options will be taken up. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) could well be right: a new idea might arise in the weeks, months and years before this event comes about, and the Government may well have to come back with more legislation.
	I would be more content if the Government focused on what is possible, rather than on what is practically impossible at the moment. I welcome the prospect of the Northern Ireland Assembly being brought out of suspension, if events go as well as the Government and my colleagues and I hope. Although the Assembly created under the 2006 legislation is not running, it is certainly up. I trust that the position of the Social, Democratic and Labour partywhich is willing to participate, to discuss these issues and to put them before the Governmentwill be taken on board, because it is largely the same as that adopted by me and my colleagues. We do not want to be part of a talking shop. That said, we do want to talk about these issues and to reach agreement on them, but we will point out to the Government that if an agreement is reached, they must ensure that the wishes of the elected representatives in Northern Ireland are implemented in respect not just of the issues before us, but of wider issues.

Nigel Dodds: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but my hon. Friend made it clear that when he was talking about who would be First Minister and Deputy First Minister, he was doing so in the context of the legislation before us and the various scenarios that might arise. He also made it clear, as has our party, that the prospects of reaching that situation, in which we would consider proposals for the Northern Ireland Assembly on the issue of devolution of policing and justice, are remote. In fact, they are so remote that it is difficult to envisage when it might happen.
	As for the holding of ministerial office, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Prime Minister has said that parties that want to take part in the government of Northern Ireland should support the policing, but that those are matters for the medium term and which must be worked on or must happenas if we can somehow expect that to happen in due course, in parallel with the Executive being up and running. That will not wash.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the remarks by Dermot Aherne, the Irish Foreign Minister. It is completely unacceptable for him to tell people in Northern Ireland that he would not share power with Sinn Fein in the Republic because it does not support the Garda Siochana, but that it is acceptable for it to be in government in Northern Ireland because we have been in a conflict situation. Our people, our constituents, our kith and kin have been murdered and butchered by the people who Dermot Aherne says are acceptable as Government Ministers, and they still do not support the police. What sort of message does that send to the people of Northern Ireland?
	Dermot Aherne said in effect that it was acceptable for Sinn Fein not to support the police because all the recommendations of the Patten report have not been implemented. He was pressed on which recommendations he meant, and he said that Sinn Fein had not signed up. I am sure that the SDLP was not very grateful for those comments. It was diplomatic in its response, in public, but I am sure that it has let the Irish Government know how it feels.
	In those remarks, Dermot Aherne effectively told Sinn Fein, It's okay, you don't have to sign up to policing and justice, or give your support to the police. We accept your position of being in government but not supporting the police. That is a very dangerous situation, and the Government should be aware that this is a matter of fundamental importance to all the people of Northern Ireland. That is why the decision, in that context, of the Ulster Unionist party to embrace the PUP as a formal part of its party structure in the Assembly has such incredible implications for the political process in Northern Ireland. I welcome what the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) has put on record today, but the reason that her party leader gave her in private conversation is not the reason he gave publicly at the time, or in the Assembly. He said that he had done it purely as a power grab, to grab an extra ministry. In fact, if he had waited, he would not have needed to do that at all. He has got all the pain, with no gain whatever.

Ian Paisley: Does my hon. Friend agree that we are getting into dangerous territory? The Government are bypassing the conditions that were laid down by the Prime Minister in this very House. A statement has been issued by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that the UUP's decision to subsume Mr. Ervine was a surprise, but a matter for the parties. I do not know what he means by that. What parties? Healso said that Sinn Fein was in a much stronger position to be on the Executive since the IRA had decommissioned. He said:
	The UVF have not ended their paramilitary campaign...They are still involved in criminality in a big way and all of those things are things which the IRA have promised to deliver on and is delivering on.
	That is giving a green light to two parties to keep on their way. They can not do what the Prime Minister said that they would do and still be in government and appoint people to office.

Nigel Dodds: For the vast bulk of the time,Mr. McCord has been a constituent in Belfast, North. Certainly, his son was murdered while he was living there.
	In conclusion, these new clauses touch on wider political issues. As I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for Foyle, we could spend a long time on minutiae and mechanics and lose the context of what we are discussing. The latter part of the debate has focused on the real political issues at stake. There has been much talk about locks, triple locks, and quadruple locks. Some people will be on the side of the locksmiths and will try to build in safeguards, while others will be on the side of those who want to pick the lock and sneak into Government by the back door.
	We are on the side of the locksmiths and are building in safeguards. I am glad that the new clause means that we will have, not the triple lock that my party called for originally, but a quadruple lock. That quadruple lock requires the approval of the Secretary of State and this House, and the 50-50 approval of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I welcome that, for precisely the reason that the leader of the SDLP does notit changes the Belfast agreement. Moreover, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have to agree before any proposal can be brought forward.

Patrick Cormack: I had not intended to take part in the debate, but I have listened with considerable interest to speeches that have been rather longer than were originally promised. I completely understand that and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have been very generous in allowing a wide-ranging debate on the new clause. I hope that it does not sound patronising if I say that I think that you have been right to do so. Events have taken place in the Province this week that cast a shadow, and hon. Members were bound to refer to them. I thank you very much for allowing them to do so.
	I support the new clause because, in essence, it is impeccable. The Government are saying that in no circumstances should matters of policing and justice be devolved unless there is a credible and virtually unanimous wish across the Province, encapsulated by the agreement of the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the nationalist and Unionist communities, that that should happen. All of that is right, and I applaud the Minister for bringing the new clause forward.
	I listened with mounting perplexity to the long speech from the leader of the SDLP, which certainly deserves to earn him a doctorate in Machiavellian studies. He set out so many conditions and preconditions, and anticipated so many difficulties, that the Minister was right to resist his blandishments.
	The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) referred earlier to last week's appearance by Secretary of State before the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. It is always an interesting session when he comes before the Committee, and last week was no exception. He always treats the Committee with total courtesy, and is an extremely effective witness, but he did rather equivocate last week.
	One after another, hon. Members asked whether the acceptance of the rule of law and support for the police should not be preconditions of participation in government. The transcript shows that the Secretary of State did not give an unequivocal and binding answer, yet the new clause contains just such a commitment [ Interruption.] It would be nice to have the attention of all those from the Province.
	The new clause says that matters of policing and justice cannot be devolved without the agreement about which there has been much discussion and which the DUP support very strongly. On the other hand, however, it makes it clear that people will be allowed into government and positions of executive responsibility who do not accept the rule of law or support the policing of the Province.
	That is a remarkable and frankly indefensible paradox, and I beg the Minister to talk to the Secretary of State about it. There will be an opportunity to debate the matter in greater detail later this afternoon, although I shall not necessarily take part. That is why I making some relevant remarks now.
	We cannot cherry-pick in the way that is proposed if we are to have a proper and credible Assembly in Northern Ireland, with an Executive who can command widespread and lasting support. To establish proper normality in the Province, we must remember what government means, and insist absolutely that it is upheld by those who participate in it. People cannot uphold government if they do not uphold the rule of law, and they cannot do that unless they uphold those who are given responsibility for keeping the peace.
	I hope that the debate will lead to a bit of a rethink, and that the Secretary of State will give us an absolute assurance that cherry-picking will end. I hope that a welcome will be extended to people who change their views and foreswear criminality. It is impossible to forget, but there must be a willingness to draw a line in respect of the past. The absolute requirement, however, is that the people with executive responsibility in government sign up to the rule of law, absolutely and completely. That must be accepted totally if matters to do with justice and policing are ever to be devolved.
	Until such matters are devolved, we will not have a proper devolved Government in the Province. That is why it is essential that we move towards the acceptance that I have described. The Government are right to insist on the preconditions in new clause 3, and I applaud them for bringing that provision forward, but I also implore them to accept the logic of the argument implicit in it. There can be no fudge over the next six months that causes us to land up with an Assembly that has built-in obsolescence from the day of its first meeting.
	I am one of those who are concerned about the future of the Province of Northern Ireland. We want it to be treated with the same degree of respect as Wales, Scotland and England, and to enjoy the same degree of normality that obtains in those countries. That is why we must insist that there can be no fudge in this matter. That is crucially important.
	I support what the Minister is asking the House to agree to this afternoon, and I do so without any equivocation whatsoever. However, the Government must be equally unequivocal in the demands that they make on those who would aspire to Government in the Province.

William McCrea: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. For many years, both he and his good wife, the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton), have indeed had the interests of Northern Ireland at heart. I wholeheartedly agree that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) exactly set out the principles of democracy, but I do not accept that terrorists should hold up devolved Government in Northern Ireland. The Social Democratic and Labour party should have the imagination and vision to join the rest of us in a devolved, cross-community Government who ostracise those who carry on criminal and terrorist activity.
	We have constantly suggested to the SDLP that there could be a voluntary coalition among true democrats in Northern Ireland. That would give great heart to the people of Northern Ireland and would be a positive way forward. If the SDLP ties itself to the likes of Sinn Fein-IRA, it will be tying itself to a broken stick. Sinn Fein-IRA have proved that they are not democrats working in accordance with the principles of democracythey are not, therefore, meeting the conditions.
	The rest of usthe people of Northern Irelandshould not be tied by criminals and terrorists. True democrats should stand shoulder to shoulder, side by side, and give the people hope and a visionary way forward that will give us a good devolved Government who are not undermined by the constant threat of whether their members will be involved in terrorist atrocity or whether another stash of arms will be found. We need stable government, and the conditions for devolving policing and justice matters are the same as those that will establish truly acceptable, democratic devolved government in Northern Ireland.
	We in the DUP want to see that day; we want it for the good of the people of Northern Ireland, but there is one price that we will not pay. We are not willing to undermine the principles of democracy. If we do that, the foundations will be rotten and, as I have said so many times, a house built on sand will surely fall when the day of testing comes. My Saviour set out that principle when he talked about the house built on sand. The house that will withstand every test is the house built on rock. Our foundation must be the rock of democracy and we will accept nothing less. We must have those conditions, which is why I am happy to support everything that my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends have said in the debate. I trust that the Secretary of State will get the message. We are not moving one iota from the principles we have set out in the past.

David Hanson: I want that full support for the police to be visualised in an operational way by support from all parties for policing. I want Sinn Fein to take their places on the Policing Board, as does the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins). I want to see that support. However, there are specific reasons why the Government cannot accept the phraseology of later amendments.
	I want to refocus the debate on the fact that there is an element of consensus among Members here today. I welcome the welcome of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle for the proposals that I have made in response to the concerns that he put to me in Committee. HoweverI mean this in the nicest possible waythere is a danger that the amendments that he has tabled will mean that we will not just micro-manage some of the circumstances, but micro-micro-manage them. I understand and have some sympathy with what he has said, in that everything that he has mentioned in support of his amendments is accurate and relates to things that could occur. However, I am trying to envisage circumstances in which they would. What I am saying is genuinely intended to help him. He talked about d'Hondt. It is true that a Justice Minister counts as a d'Hondt post, but if a Minister resigns or is dismissed and a new Minister is appointed, d'Hondt would be run again. The Bill already provides for that. So, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister cannot gain extra seats by dismissing Ministers from other parties in the way that he has suggested.
	Again, I understand the possibilities but, as even the hon. Members for Belfast, East and for Belfast, North recognised, we are discussing things that may or may not ever occur. I accept that they could occur and that everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle said is possible. I will certainly reflect on those things. If other parties feel that we need to micro-micro-manage those issues, I am happy to reflect on those points in another place. I am trying to put in place a broad framework that will mean that devolution can take place and we have the mechanisms in place to put in the locks to which we have all referred. Although we can certainly adopt the principles of what has been said, I do not necessarily wish to micro-manage at that level of detail the possibilities that exist, but if other parties wish to do so I am happy to reflect on those points.

David Hanson: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) for the work that shehas done. On individual cases, such as that of her constituent Lisa Dorrian, she has been relentless in her pursuit of not just justice, but condemnation, which is a key matter than she holds dear to her heart.

Nigel Dodds: My hon. Friend is right. Halls that have been targetedfor example, in Castlederg, Strabane, Altnaveigh in Newry, and Whiterock in Belfast, near my constituencyare all situated in areas where the Protestant Unionist community is very much in the minority. That is a feature of the preponderance of attacks that have taken place, though it is not exclusively the case. They are seen as attacks on vulnerable communities, depriving them of what is for many of them their only local community resource.
	I know that the Minister takes such matters very seriously. In recent months he has spent a long time looking into issues in deprived Unionist areas in particular, and deprived areas generally. He has spoken to many people in local communities in Belfast and in rural areas. I know that he has heard directly from many organisations, community groups and individuals who make extensive use of Orange halls and other halls, and who have told him how important it is that those facilities continue to be made available for local communities in their areas.
	The new clause is in line with the Government's recent derating of Orange halls, and it is all of a piece with the proposals announced by the Minister recently, when he said that he was in the business of trying to bring about regeneration and give confidence to deprived Unionist and loyalist areas. If the Government were to adopt the amendment, it would be seen as a positive step in not only Unionist communities, but nationalist communities.
	The amendment would not cost the Government a considerable amount of money. They may say that we must not open the floodgates to large amounts of Government expenditure, but the fact that they have been prepared to move on the issue of the rates indicates that they recognise the issue.
	The Minister followed through on his consultation process in those communities with a 33 million package, and something similar could be done to help communities in not only Belfast, but throughout Northern Ireland. The DUP welcomed that package, but we recognise that a lot of it was centred on deprived areas, particularly in Greater Belfast. We accept that the bulk of the most deprived areas are in Belfast, but we have also made the point that the process should not stop there and that more needs to be done for rural areas and the west of the Province. This is a tremendous opportunity for the Government to take that process forward and implement in a practical yet modest way a measure that would give a tremendous fillip to communities throughout Northern Ireland.
	I urge the Minister to accept the amendment. It is clear that the current regulations, which require proof that a hall has been attacked unlawfully, maliciously and wantonly by three or more persons unlawfully, riotously or tumultuously assembled, or as a result of an act committed maliciously by a person actingon behalf of or in connection with an unlawful association, are often unworkable, because in a huge number of cases it is impossible to prove that those conditions were met. Such attacks often take place in the dead of night in isolated areas. Everyone in Northern Ireland knows that the motivation behind attacks on community halls is sectarian, yet obtaining compensation for such an attack can, even when it is done successfully, be tortuous and involve extremely costly insurance premiums.
	Such premises should be categorised in the same way as agricultural premises, which have been categorised in Northern Ireland for the precise reasons that I have enunciated. Agricultural premises were targeted in the dead of night and, although everybody knew why it was happening, the matter could not be proved. Historically, the Government have recognised that certain types of buildings and premises deserve special categorisation, because they are in isolated areas and are difficult to protect and defend, and Unionist and nationalist halls across the community deserve to be placed in that category. I trust that the Minister will respond positively to the amendment.

Lembit �pik: I want to add two thoughts to the remarks by the hon. Member for Belfast, North(Mr. Dodds). First, it seems that there is some justification for saying that in certain circumstances in which natural justice would point towards a compensation payout, such payouts have been prevented by the strictures outlined by the hon. Member for Belfast, North, because the conditions are difficult to prove. He cites the example of a rural and isolated premises that might be subject to an arson attack. The same thing can happen in urban areas. Will the Minister outline his understanding of the extent to which this is a problem?
	My second concern is that it looks as though an accident of circumstance can mean that an attack in two different situations will lead to very different outcomes as regards compensation, through no fault of the person making the compensation claim. What is the Minister's view of that apparent double standard? I know that he would agree that it is an unintended consequence of the Bill, but it strikes me that the new clause could resolve the disparity. It would be terribly undesirable were compensation not to be paid out in some situations. I hope that he can either accept the new clause or provide clarity about what the Government regard as the best course of action to ensure that those in rural and isolated areas, or those who cannot prove the nature of an attack, are not treated as second-class citizens.

'After section 9 of the 1983 Act insert
	9A Anonymous registration: Northern Ireland
	(1) This section applies if an application for registration in a register of parliamentary electors of local government electors is made in accordance with the requirements for the purposes of section 10A(1)(a) below and is accompanied by
	(a) an application under this section made in accordance with prescribed requirements (an application for an anonymous entry),
	(b) a declaration made in accordance with such requirements for the purposes of this section, and
	(c) such evidence in support of the application for anonymous registration as may be prescribed.
	(2) If the registration officer determines that the person is entitled to be registered, he must also determine whether the safety test is satisfied.
	(3) If the registration officer determines that the safety test is satisfied
	(a) section 9(2) does not apply in relation to the person; and
	(b) the person's entry in the register shall instead contain letters in the prescribed form and his electoral number.
	(4) An entry containing the matters mentioned in subsection (3)(b) above is referred to in this Act as an anonymous entry.
	(5) If an anonymous entry is made in respect of a person, the registration officer shall remove any other entry in the register for that person.
	(6) If the registration officer does not determine that the safety test is satisfied, no entry is to be made in respect of him in the register (whether an anonymous entry or otherwise).
	(7) Subsection (6) above does not affect
	(a) any other entry in the register for the person;
	(b) the determination of any further application for registration which is made by the person (including an application which is treated as having been made by him by virtue of section 10A(2) below).
	(8) Any communication sent by a registration officer or the returning officer for any election to a person who has an anonymous entry (A) must be sent in an envelope or other form of covering so as not to disclose to any other person that A has an anonymous entry.
	(9) The safety test is satisfied if the safety of the applicant for an anonymous entry or that of any other person of the same household would be at risk if the register contains the name of the applicant or his qualifying address.
	(10) In this section, determines means determines in accordance with regulation.
	9B Removal of anonymous entry: Northern Ireland
	(1) If a person has an anonymous entry in a register, his entitlement to remain in pursuance of the application for registration mentioned in section 9A(1) terminates
	(a) at the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the date when the entry in the register first takes effect, or
	(b) if the declaration made for the purposes of section 9A is at the time when the declaration is cancelled.
	(2) Subsection (1) above does not affect the application of any other provision of this Act or of the Representation of the People Act 1985 which has the effect that the person's entitlement to registration terminates before the expiry of the 12 month period mentioned in subsection (1) or before the cancellation of the declaration made for the purposes of section 9A.
	(3) If a person's entitlement to remain registered terminates by virtue of subsection (1) above, the registration officer concerned shall remove his entry from the register, unless he is entitled to remain registered with an anonymous entry in pursuance of a further application for registration accompanied by a further application under section 9A..'. [Mr. Reid.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Lembit �pik: The Minister is likely to stand up and give the reasons why the Government are not willing to accept this commonsense proposal, and we have just had a vote on a matter in which he showed no interest at all. He did not take the DUP's amendment at all seriously, but does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister would do a lot better if he showed some sympathy and empathy for what is being proposed?

deferred division

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am now to announce the result of a Division deferred on the question of a Joint Committee on Conventions.
	On the motion on the Joint Committee on Conventions, the Ayes were 416, the Noes were 20, so the motion was agreed to.
	 [The Division List is published at the end of today's debates.]

New Clause 7
	  
	AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 30 OF THE 1998 ACT

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss
	New clause 8 Amendment to section 30 of the 1988 Act
	'In Section 18 of the 1998 Act after subsection (8) insert
	(8A) A Northern Ireland Minister shall not take up office until he has made a declaration before the Assembly pledging to uphold the rule of law..'.

David Hanson: For the avoidance of any doubt, I say straight away to the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) that I will not be ambivalent in my comments on support for policing. This Government, the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins) and I all believe that Sinn Fein should be involved in, sign up to and support policing, and that they should take their places on the Policing Board. I am not going to defend in this House a situation in which attacks on schools could occur, or in which individuals are not encouraged to go to the police to ensure that information about rapes is passed on. I make it clear to the hon. Member for East Antrim and others that the Government look forward to the day when Sinn Fein members take their place on the Policing Board and all citizens of Northern Ireland respect and support policing in the community and at large.
	We share the aim of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson)

David Hanson: I reciprocate the hon. Gentleman's sentiments, but he will understand that every hon. Member who has spoken today shares the same objective. I simply do not feel that legislating for it in the way proposed, with due respect to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury would achieve that end or, for the reasons of definition mentioned by the hon. Member for East Antrim, would be applicable.

'PART A1
	  
	DEPARTMENT IN THE CHARGE OF MINISTER APPROVED BY RESOLUTION OF ASSEMBLY

David Hanson: Over the course of its consideration, on Second Reading, in Committeeparticularly given that there was a Committee of the whole Houseand on Report, we have had a useful discussion about the principles of the Bill. I commend right hon. and hon. Members on their valuable contributions to today's debate. Contrary to assertions made by Members, the Government have listened to some of the points that have been made and have tabled amendments that have made a material difference to the nature of the Bill. As with every piece of legislation, it is not possible to accept every amendment or every point made in the debate. There will be differences between us, but I have moved on several points and I am pleased to see that those have been incorporated in the Third Reading of the Bill.
	As right hon. and hon. Members will know, there is a clear path open to us now on Northern Ireland's political development to ensure that, as has been stated by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, by the end of 2006 we bring about clear political progress for the political organisations in Northern Ireland and for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland. It is now for local politicians to take forward that task of devolution. I am pleased that we are meeting today, in the week that the Assembly reconvened following the passing of earlier legislation; that we have in place Assembly Members who are signed up again to take part in the Assembly; and that we had debates on the Floor of the Assembly this week, with participation from Members from across the Assembly. I believe, as do the Government, that the Assembly offers a better future for Northern Ireland. Now, through the Bill, we are in a position to take forward the possible next stages of devolution in Northern Ireland by devolving criminal justice and policing.
	Given what has been said today, no one fails to accept that there are still major hurdles to overcome and that work must be done, not least to get the proper Executive-led Assembly back in place by November. Additionally, difficulties are self-evident to anyone who has been involved in our debates on the possible devolution of criminal justice and policing. However, the Bill sets a clear path before the House: devolution in October or NovemberI hopeat the very latest with the Executive back in place. At some point in the future, we will have the framework and opportunity for the devolution of criminal justice and policing. For the sake of having the discussion again, the famous tripleor perhaps now even quadruplelock is in place whereby the Assembly, the Secretary of State and the Government must agree with the House of Commons if such devolution is to take place. In all essence, however, the framework is in place.
	The framework is in place because, hopefully, no one can deny that there is progress towards a political solution in Northern Ireland, however slow that might seem. The latest IMC report of 26 April states that the Provisional IRA leadership is committed to a peaceful path. There is work to be done and efforts to be undertaken, but we must realise that there is movement and that Northern Ireland today is unrecognisable from how it was at the height of the troubles in recent years.
	The Bill makes progress on the devolution of policing and criminal justice, but it does much more than that. It takes forward the modernisation of our electoral system so that we will be brought in line, over a staged period, with the rest of the United Kingdom's electoral law on political party funding. It also modernises the electoral canvass and allows for the appointment and operation of the chief electoral officer. Again, it does so to put Northern Ireland in a fair frame of progress towards proper elections and electoral law.
	The Bill also provides for an extension to the order-making power under the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 to facilitate the continued decommissioning of loyalist weapons. That issue has been a major bone of contention today, but I will press, along with hon. Members on both sides of the House, especially the hon. Member for North Down(Lady Hermon) and DUP Members, for the decommissioning of loyalist weapons. The Bill puts in place a framework to give us extra time, should we need it.
	The Bill will also make important contributions to the existing criminal justice and policing regimes in Northern Ireland. It will give investigators and prosecutors new powers to tackle serious and organised crime. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who is new to his position, will be taking forward those measures in due course to ensure that we do what we say we will do, namely, crack down on organised crime and criminality in Northern Ireland. We will continue to take the effective steps that have been seen over the past few weeks to tackle the cross-border smuggling of petrol and cigarettes, and other problems.
	An issue close to the heart of the hon. Member for North Down is central to the Bill. The Bill provides corporation sole status to the office of the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I gave her an assurance that we would do that when we were considering the on-the-runs legislation in Committee and, following her representations, we have done so. We have responded to her concerns, sodare I say?the Government have listened. We have also responded to other points that members of that Committee raised, albeit not all of them.
	There are several other key aspects of the Bill that we should consider. Only today I moved a new clause on sustainable development, which is now part of the Bill, to ensure that we protect our environment for our children and grandchildren. We have introduced important measures to safeguard the future of the environment and are giving legal status to the59 million investment that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has brought forward to support sustainable development. That means, in real life, that we can use the 59 million to do important things for the people of Northern Ireland. That includes putting solar panelsthis is part of my political domainin new social build housing, with 600 panels this year and 600 next year, to help the environment. Those are the challenges on improving our environment.
	The Bill also contains key provisions for a single wholesale electricity market, with opportunities for new investment, new efficiencies, new economies of scale and security of supplythe things that matter to the people on the island of Ireland as a whole, both north and south of the border. It is a pragmatic approach, welcomed by all hon. Members, to support the economic well-being of Northern Ireland in the future. The Bill achieves what it set out to achieveit helps us to make progress on the devolution of policing; it modernises our election law; it provides support for sustainable development; and it looks at giving extra support to tackling crime. It is a good Bill.
	On behalf of the ministerial team, I want to thank the many officials from the Northern Ireland Office and the devolved Executive, reporting to direct rule Ministers, for the time and effort that they put in over many weeks, months and, in some cases, years, to bring the clauses to fruition. A tremendous amount of work went on behind the scenes. As a Minister, it is important that I recognise that.
	The Bill will add to the value of Northern Ireland and add strength to devolution. I commend it to the House.

Laurence Robertson: By and large, we welcome the Bill, although we have tried to improve it in various ways. I thank the Minister for the way in which he introduced it and took it through Committee. It has been possible to explore it in great detail, and he was always willing to take interventions. It does credit to the House that we have analysed it in that way, in particular on the Floor of the House, which has been useful in part.
	We have some concerns. We were worried about abolishing the annual canvass and tried to put a time scale on that so that there would be canvasses in 2015 at the latest and every 10 years after that. We were also a little concerned about the ability of the chief electoral officer, working with the Secretary of State, to cancel those canvasses, but we are where we are and we recognise the need to modernise the system. The important thing is that we have a full register of electors in Northern Ireland.
	We were a bit concerned about the donations for political purposes, although we did not touch on that greatly. We would have liked a time limit on donations from the Republic of Ireland, but the Government turned that down. I regret that. We tabled an amendment to address that, but sadly we did not reach it because of the lack of time. However, those donations remain a concern, for obvious reasons.
	The biggest issue covered by the Bill is the devolution of policing and justice. Although we have no objection to that in principle, we have discussed it at length and are worried that responsibility for it could fall into the wrong hands. I recognise that we have the double-double lock, the treble lock or the quadruple lockor whatever it isand that the Assembly does not have to accept responsibility for policing and justice. However, whether policing and justice are devolved, the points raised in connection with that are extremely important.
	I spoke about my experiences in South Armagh, but did not get a chance to expand on those because of the 6 o'clock deadline. When I visited it last weekI was pleased that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee also visited it last week, and that the Chairman confirmed that my experiences were hisit was stressed that there had been a huge improvement in the area. However, it can by no means be considered normal when the police cannot go out on their own. That is not acceptable in any part of the United Kingdom. Whether certain people in that area like it or not, it is part of the United Kingdom. One of the most alarming things was that the police told me that the MP for that area would not engage with them. That is unacceptable, especially when that person is a Member of the Assembly, could become a Minister, and could become the Minister with responsibility for the police. However, at this point that person will not engage with them. Moving on from that, we wanted to try to make it a little more secure that people holding office in Northern Ireland actually supported the rule of law.
	The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) mentioned that when he did a television programme and asked a Sinn Fein supporter whether they would report a crimehe gave as an example the crime of rape. If someone had such knowledge and did not report it, they would not be upholding the rule of law. It is not acceptable for such a person to sit in government. It is unfortunate that the Minister did not accept our amendments in that respect. We pressed them to the vote and did not win, but we made the point. It was not a watertight measure, but it would have moved the situation in the right direction.
	Again, we have not discussed the electricity market in great detail on the Floor of the House, although we discussed it upstairs. My understandingthis is not a criticism; it has been a good startis that the Bill does not create the wholesale electricity market, as it is headlined in the Bill. According to the discussions I have had with the authorities in Northern Ireland, it will provide the ability to coordinate the regulation of the market in Northern Ireland with the regulation of the market in the Republic of Ireland. That may be a useful step but, in order for consumers in Northern Ireland to get the full benefit of that, they need to go further and to have a true market covering the whole of Ireland and, indeed, possibly the whole of Ireland and the United Kingdom. A bigger market, especially if they can move towards a freer market, will lead to lower electricity prices.
	I welcome the possibility of financial assistance for energy purposes, which is in clause 23, especially renewable energy. It is important that we develop renewable energy, first, because it is renewable and helps to reduce emissions of poisonous gases, and secondly, because it would provide security of supply. We have seen throughout the world a rather unsettled market in primary sources of energy. If we look at what is happening in certain areas of South America and at the behaviour of Russia on one or two occasions, it is clear that we need a more secure energy supply in this country.
	I pay tribute to the answer that the Prime Minister gave during Prime Minister's questions today. He gave a balanced and positive view of energy policy. I hope that he has the courage to pursue that policy against the opposition of certain members of his own party. It is important that he does so. I give a word of warning on clause 23. In Great Britain, we have not developed renewable energy as well as we should. It still provides a very small percentage of the electricity that we use. If we are going to pursue that in Northern Ireland, we need to do more not only on energy conservation, but on the development of renewable energy. It is not being developed in this country quickly enough. I hope that we can use the Bill to study why that has not been the case and to move on renewable energy a little more quickly in Northern Ireland than we have in Great Britain.
	I have made just a few observations; perhaps other hon. Members want to contribute. By and large, we welcome the Bill. There are not many of my colleagues here tonight, but they have contributed a great deal in Committee, particularly the Chairman of the Select Committee. I thank them for their help and support during the passage of the Bill.

Eddie McGrady: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on Third Reading. Generally, my party welcomes the Bill, which is more miscellaneous than most of us expected. The Minister said that he has achieved what he set out to achieve, and that seems to have been his attitude every time that he saw a new draft or provision. None the less, the Bill usefully deals with the multitude of issues mentioned by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson). Some of its provisions are essential, some are useful and some are convenient but, none the less, they all contribute to the whole.
	On behalf of my party, may I pay tribute to Ministers who have moved on from the Northern Ireland Office, hopefully to greater things as a result of the fine training that we gave them and the multi-faceted experience that they gained? May I welcome to the Front Bench the new Ministers with whom we hope to do good business in the months ahead? The Bill is interesting, as it does not have a central theme and changes gear in each part. I was disappointed that we did not manage to debate some of our new clauses because of the 6 o'clock deadline. That is especially true of the new clause that deals with the powers of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Notwithstanding the lack of debate, perhaps the Minister can take on board our efforts to give the commission powers that are available to other human rights commissions, especially in the south of Ireland, so that it can act in accordance with European Union requirements on human rights. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission does not have investigatory powers to pursue people and papers.

David Hanson: Given that we failed to reach new clause 9, may I give my hon. Friend an assurance that we seek to implement the results of our consultation on the Northern Ireland Human Rights Consultation at an appropriate time? His proposal may not have found favour today, but its broad principles should receive Government support in future.

Eddie McGrady: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is no harm in making the attempt, but I accept your rap on the knuckles.
	I thank the Minister not just for his intervention, but for the commitments, undertakings and reviews that he has promised in the months ahead. The atmosphere in Committee and throughout proceedings on the Bill is indicative of a new understanding or tolerance across the Floor of the House. I experienced it, too, when we debated the Northern Ireland Act 2006. A clear understanding of the needs and requirements of the two communities in Northern Ireland was given positive expression, and I hope that that will be translated substantively and directly to the new Assembly, which was reconvened on Monday and Tuesday this week. I am sure that it is appropriate to say in the House that we wish the Assembly a fair wind in dealing with the many difficult problems that it faces to enable people to move from entrenched positions so that they can accommodate one another. The contents of this and other Bills will assist that process. Hopefully, this will the last such Bill to come before the House, because all the matters that it covers, with the exception of reserved matters, will be dealt with by an Executive of the Northern Ireland parties on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments about the new Assembly. I also welcome the participation of the SDLP in the proceedings of the Assembly earlier this week. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in expressing regret that one partySinn Feinwhich absents itself from this House, was also absent on Tuesday from the debate on the economy? Is it not time that it ended its abstentionism?

Eddie McGrady: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That saves me thinking of a suitable response to the last intervention. I shall simply say, Noted and agreed.
	Some of the comments made on Report disturbed me. It seemed as though certain parties were flagging up new preconditions for the effective devolution of policing and justice. Without going into detail because of the time factor, I urge the Government to do all in their power not to fall into the trap that they have fallen into repeatedly with demands from Sinn Fein and, with respect, demands from the Democratic Unionist party, which are preconditions to further progress. The whole thrust and ethos of making progress in Northern Ireland is that no party has a veto on progress over other parties. That has been neglected or severely damaged in the past two or three years.
	Even today, a certain precondition seemed to be imposed by the DUP, which sounded to me like an everlasting ban on Sinn Fein being accepted into government. That sounded a negative notethe only negative note. I know the concerns that DUP Members have, because I have exactly the same concerns. We cannot have people in government who do not fully, honestly and openly support law and order. However, that should not be used in a dramatic way in terms of the purity of the situation.
	It is difficult when one is dealing with human relationships and things evolve and change daily. We should not box ourselves into preconditions. For instance, the Government allowed Sinn Fein to say that it would not join the Policing Board until the DUP agreed to the devolution of policing and justice. That is a crazy situation, in which we should not allow ourselves to be involved. We need openness to achieve progress in Northern Ireland. The Bill, with its various provisions covering elections, funding, donations and the matters that we discussed today regarding policing and justice, will contribute to a healthy debate in Northern Ireland. I hope that we can translate the very good atmosphere in the House today to the Floor of the Assembly. If we do, the hope of achieving full, lasting and proper devolution to Northern Ireland will be greatly enhanced.

Lembit �pik: When I think of the range of the Billsustainable development, policing and justice, criminal damage, registration of electors, children, commitment to the rule of law, powers of the Human Rights Commission, primacy in intelligence gathering, donations to political parties and so onit is amazing that it is possible to be out of order on any of the subjects that we have covered, but we have even achieved that.
	I noted the Minister's praise of his team. He has made some terrible mistakes by not listening more to the sage advice offered to him by Opposition parties. I know from personal experience how wonderful the Northern Ireland Office team is, and no doubt it supports him superbly. I am sure that they agree that the Minister should have taken on some of our amendments, given their fine judgments on these matters.
	The Minister has shown some signs of listening in the past few hours. If in some small way we have opened his ears to be more inclusive in his politics with regard to Northern Ireland, then the debate on Report and Third Reading will have been worthwhile.
	The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) highlighted some issues about which he is concerned. I broadly agree with him and share the same concerns, which I do not need to repeat.
	I remain concerned that there is a weakness in the 50:50:50 process in securing cross-community support, and I am worried that that will once again get in the way in the months ahead. I hope that the Minister will at least take on board and consider our points on that matter.
	I am also concerned about the census. We have made a mistake by allowing such a preposterously long period in keeping the census up to date. All the good work and the enormous investment of time and money which has been carried out to make sure that we have the most accurate electoral register in the United Kingdom will fade away because of the length of time between electoral censuses. Once again, I hope that the Minister will reflect on that point, and if my rather gloomy prediction turns out to be right, perhaps the Government will revisit the enormously long period between censuses.
	Finally, I recently saw a fine show in Majorca called, PiratesI attended to help raise money for Great Ormond Street hospital. As I watched the show, I thought about how this Government plunder the goodwill of Northern Ireland politicianssome of us have covered this particular portfolio for almost a decade. They have stolen money from students by introducing a truly unpopular method of student support, and they have also threatened the Northern Irish people with enormous hikes in their utility bills in order to undo damage which was not caused by the citizens themselves.
	If the politicians of Northern Ireland use this Bill and other legislation as a spur to restart the Stormont Assembly, then Northern Ireland will not have to endure the injustices which are endlessly meted out to them by the Government as a whole rather than by this particular Minister.

Ian Paisley: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me for two minutes. I will try to keep my word, although I did not give it.
	I was surprised by the remarks of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). He has been preaching for a very long time that we must all bow to the Anglo-Irish agreement, which he says is the great test. The Anglo-Irish agreement[Hon. Members: The Belfast agreement.] Whatever one likes to call itGood Friday, bad Friday or rotten Friday. I want to say to the House that this is where the government of Northern Ireland, and what we do, should be decided. It should not be decided by votes taken in the south of Ireland and then people scrambling out every time there is difficulty saying, The whole of Ireland agreed to this. The whole of Ireland has nothing to do with it. This is the United Kingdom and we have a right to decide what we do.
	We are making no preconditions. Everybody knows what I have said; I have been saying it for a long time. I have been castigated and kicked in this House, treated as a leper, refused admittance to Downing street for two years and six months, and so on and so forth, and I am still saying the same thing. The Prime Minister said the same thing from the Front Bench. If he wants to break his word to the people of Northern Ireland, we will not be breaking our word to the people who have voted for us.
	We are in great difficulties because on Monday and Tuesday we discovered that the Ulster Unionist party had entered into an agreement with the Progressive Unionist party. Any Minister of this Government who is prepared to defend the PUP has only to read what the report that Government Ministers love to readthe Independent Monitoring Commission reporthas said about it. All that I can say is that we have a tougher road to travel, and we had better remember that. I hope that this House will remember that, by passing this Bill without amendments that would have been useful to us in the battle to keep to democracy, it is really responsible for what happens.
	I think that I have exceeded my time, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Thank you.

DRAFT LEGAL SERVICES BILL (JOINT COMMITTEE)

RANA FARUQUI

Theresa May: I am grateful to the Speaker for giving me this opportunity to raise in this Adjournment debate the case of a daughter of a constituent. I want to speak about the brutal murder of Rana Faruqui, the handling of that case by Thames Valley police and the wider issues raised by it.
	In 2003, Rana Faruqui was a bright, attractive, lively 35-year-old working in IT as a business analyst. At work, she met Stephen Griffiths. A relationship started. Stephen Griffiths moved into her home. Several incidents of domestic violence followed, the relationship faltered, and Stephen Griffiths left her home. After he left her home, several incidents of him stalking Rana Faruqui took place. On 21 July, Rana Faruqui reported by telephone to Thames Valley police that the brake pipes on her car had been cut. Three days later, on 24 July 2003, she went physically to Slough police station and spoke to the police about the fact that those brake pipes had been cut. That report passed from inbox to inbox, and from officer to officer, for 10 whole days. On Saturday 2 August 2003, Stephen Griffiths stabbed and brutally murdered Rana Faruqui.
	I have absolutely no doubt that Thames Valley police failed Rana. They should have taken the issue of the cutting of the brake pipes more seriously. Sadly, Rana's family, having had to face the tragedy of her brutal murder, are left with the feeling that had Thames Valley police acted differently, she might be alive today.
	I am very conscious that there has been a full investigation of the case by Thames Valley police, and that a misconduct hearing in relation to one senior officer is still due to take place. Despite parliamentary privilege I do not intend to name any individual officers, but I hope the Minister will agree that the bare facts that I have outlined raise a degree of concern about the handling of the issue by Thames Valley police. They raise wider issues as well, however, and it is on those that I wish to concentrate.
	When Rana Faruqui's mother Carol came to see me with other members of her family, she was obviously distressed at what had happened to her daughter and at the suffering that the family had experienced following Rana's death, but she was also anxious to ensure that other families were not put through the same distress. She wanted to try to ensure that issues of domestic violence, and particularly of stalking, were taken more seriously by Thames Valley police, and that any lessons from the case were learnt not only by them but by police forces across the country.
	I am grateful to the acting chief constable of Thames Valley police, Sara Thornton, for giving me information about what the force has done following the case. She has not only written to me, but taken the time and trouble to speak to me about it. As a result of my conversation with her, I hope to be able to visit one of the domestic violence units in the Thames Valley area. However, as I have said, I have absolutely no doubt that Rana was failed by Thames Valley police. That raises a number of issues about the approach that the force takes to domestic violence, and the attitude of officers to such violence.
	In 2004-05, there were 14,793 cases of domestic violence in the Thames Valley area. That is an increase of about 15 per cent. on the number of cases in 2003-04. I am aware that since then the Government have introduced a Bill to deal with domestic violence, and that more recently the Home Office has issued guidance to police forces on the handling of domestic violence cases. The acting chief constable tells me that Thames Valley police has adopted a rather more rigorous approach of risk assessment
	in all domestic violence or 'stalker' type cases,
	which are now
	reviewed and reassessed by specialist Domestic Violence Officers.
	Investigation management is subject to strict timetables.
	Cases which fall within the risk assessment process are given added scrutiny in respect of 'follow-up' with the emphasis being on early intervention and positive action.
	That is what is happening now, of course; it was not in operation when Rana Faruqui reported those incidents to the police.
	It is important to stress that, by all accounts, Rana was not a shrinking violet who did not know what to do, and did not take action when the incidents happened. She did report them to the police. We all know that many cases of domestic violence are not reported to the police, but she did report those incidents, and the stalking incidents. I think she rightly expected appropriate action to be taken, but sadly it was not.
	Despite the action that has now been taken by Thames Valley police, the case raises several issues. The first is the general attitude of the police to such cases. I want to separate the issues of domestic violence and stalking. As I have said, the Government have taken action on domestic violence issues through their Bill and the guidance that they have now issued to police forces, but I am not convinced that as much emphasis has been placed on the stalking issue, which I believe should be taken very seriously. I suspect and fear that a number of such incidents are not taken as seriously as they should be. In some cases, the police's attitude may well be, It's just somebody who has broken up with her boyfriend, does not want him around and has rung the police to try to get rid of him, but in many others, that is not what is happening.
	There are individuals out there like Stephen Griffiths. It subsequently emerged that although he could at times be very charming, he was also very manipulative and had had a number of broken relationships before he met Ranarelationships in which domestic violence incidents had occurred. So a pattern was being repeated but sadly, there was no evidence: no reporting of that pattern on which Thames Valley police could draw in assessing that case.
	I have some questions for the Minister concerning the seriousness with which stalking is being addressed. Have the Government issued any guidance on dealing with stalking? What is the attitude taken by junior officers, in particular, when they first encounter such incidents? When a junior officer first deals with a reported stalking incident, it is crucial that they take it seriously. As I said earlier, Thames Valley police told me about the various steps that they have taken in dealing with domestic violence, such as risk assessment and the use of specialist domestic violence officers, but they kick in only if the initial report is taken seriously and treated seriously.
	That leads me to the very real issue of the training our police officers, their understanding of such incidents and their recognitionor notof their seriousness. I realise that the 14,793 domestic violence incidents that Thames Valley police had to deal with in 2004-05 is a large number. But in each case where it was shown that such violence had indeed taken place, there was a victim and someone who had acted in a criminal way against them. The police must take a serious approach to such cases.
	I want to ask the Minister about the training of police officers in dealing with stalking. Stalking hits the headlines when it happens to a celebrity and such cases have been reported to the police, but it does not happen just to celebrities. Rana Faruqui was not a celebrity, but she was stalked by Stephen Griffiths, and with tragic consequences. What are the police doing to ensure that sufficient training is given to officers, so that they understand the seriousness of such offences and behaviour, and that they recognise it and report it appropriately? They need to ensure that the action that has so far been taken can kick in, that proper risk-assessment takes place, and that officers put the emphasis on early intervention, in order to ensure that the tragic consequences of Rana's case are not repeated.
	I want also to ask about guidance from the Home Office itself and from the Association of Chief Police Officers. I hope that the lessons that the Thames Valley police have learned following this incident will be shared with other forces throughout the country. One problem that we in this country have is that police forces often do not share information with each other in an effort to deal with such issues. There is no lack of good intent in that regard: it just happens; there is no culture of sharing information. I have always been of the view that if someone finds a good way of dealing with a problem, they should share it, because doing so is to the benefit of everybody. So there are lessons to be learned, and they should be shared with other forces.
	Is the Home Office doing enough to deal with stalking? Is it introducing guidance and proper measures at police-force level? As I said earlier, Rana's mother and the rest of her family are very keen that others should not have to go through the suffering that they have gone through, purely because no lessons are learned and no action is taken by Thames Valley or other forces. They have not just sat around or even just talked to me about it. Rana's sister went over to the US to investigate the action taken there, and she sent me an interesting set of papers about San Diego county, which has established a stalking strike force, a multi-disciplinary approach to the issue. An article by Wayne Maxey, a criminal investigator affiliated with the stalking unit of the San Diego's district attorney's office, describes it as
	A multi-disciplinary approach...one in which both criminal justice and mental health approaches come together to address the problem.
	The Americans find that approach most effective. The article continues:
	The Strike Force strive to evaluate carefully each case and develop effective case management strategies.
	I have here copies of security recommendations for stalking victims and the stalking strike force victim handbookthe information that is given to victims of stalking on what they can do to help to ensure their safety. The evidence from the strike force suggests the need for early intervention, to identify where there is a serious risk and to take appropriate action.
	I am happy to share the information with the Minister. I would also be happy to meet him and share further details of the case that I am not able to share with him in the time available tonight. Rana Faruqui was brutally murdered, despite the fact that she had reported the incidents of stalking andcrucially, in my viewthe cutting of the brake cables of her car to the police. Thames Valley did nothing about that report for 10 days, at the end of which she was dead. Thames Valley police failed Rana, and I want to ensure that nobody else is failed in that way, by Thames Valley or other forces; that the lessons from this case are learned by others; and that the police take cases of domestic violence and, crucially, stalking seriously. Such cases must not be dismissed as women reporting things that have not taken place or trying to get rid of a boyfriend who is being a bit difficult. When someone goes to the police, they must be treated properly and seriously. The police must recognise the danger that can ensue and take action accordingly. We owe it to Rana and her family to ensure that the lessons are learned.

Vernon Coaker: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on securing this important debate, raising the issue of domestic violence and bringing such an appalling crime to the attention of the House. I also congratulate her on the tone of her speech, which was very moving in parts.
	I know that the hon. Lady has specific concerns about the police handling of domestic homicides, and about Thames Valley police force in particular. I am aware of the tragic circumstances of the death of Rana Faruqui, in August 2003. After suffering months of stalking and harassment from her ex-partner, including the brake pipes on her car being cut, she was fatally stabbed by him, while tending to her horses at her stables.I offer my sympathy to all who knew Miss Faruqui.
	The terrifying facts of this case and other incidents of domestic violence demonstrate the importance of ensuring that the response to the needs of victims of domestic violence is handled earlier and effectively, to reduce the risk of incidents like this occurring, as the hon. Lady pointed out. She will appreciate that I have been advised that I cannot talk about the handling of individual cases, including this one, but I will outline the comprehensive improvements that have been made by the Thames Valley police force to its handling of domestic violence.
	At the outset, I assure the right hon. Member for Maidenhead that I should, of course, be happy to meet her in my office to discuss matters that it is not possible to raise now. Stalking is one of those matters, and I look forward to her contacting me so that we can organise such a meeting.
	In addition, I shall outline a wide range of measures that the Government have instigated through the national delivery plan for domestic violence. Sweeping changes in case handling have been made across the criminal justice system, including in the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts. Those changes will aid victims and help to prevent cases such as those in the Thames Valley area and beyond. The plan also highlights action to ensure the early identification of victims and perpetrators. In addition, it offers focused support for victims and the better management of perpetrators.
	This debate gives me an opportunity to say a few things. As a new Minister at the Home Office, I was shocked when I was briefed on the scale of the problem that we face. For instance, the House will be appalled to learn the following: that, on average, two women a week are killed in the UK by a male partner or former partner; that in 2003-04 nearly 40 per cent. of all female homicide victims were killed by their current or ex-partner, compared with about 5 per cent. of male homicide victims; that about one in four women and one in six men have been victims of domestic violence since the age of 16, although women are clearly likely to suffer greater injury and be classed as chronic victims; that 89 per cent. of those suffering four or more attacks are women, and that one incident is reported to the police every minute. Moreover, as the right hon. Member for Maidenhead noted, there were more than 14,000 such incidents in the Thames Valley area in 2004-05.
	In addition to the human suffering that is caused by domestic violence, the costs to our economy are staggering. In 2001, domestic violence in England and Wales was estimated to cost a total of 23 billion, of which 3 billion was spent on public services and2.7 billion was absorbed by employers and workers. The cost of human and emotional suffering was putat 17 billion. In addition, the criminal justice system spent 1 billion on domestic violence cases, and300 million was spent by civil legal services.
	In 90 per cent. of incidents involving domestic violence, children are in the same or the next room. Domestic violence also has worrying links to pregnancy: 30 per cent. of domestic violence starts during pregnancy, and existing violence often escalates. Domestic violence accounts for 17 per cent. of all violent crime in the UK. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead probably knows those facts better than I do, but they are another reason why we should welcome the opportunity that this debate gives us to state them in the House.
	Those statistics tell a terrible story, as is highlighted by the case at the heart of this debate, but that story is made far worse when we realise that behind each statistic is a life, and often many lives. Those lives are damaged and sometimes destroyed by the cruel and barbaric acts that are committedand as a man I have to say thismainly by men. I recognise that men and same-sex couples also experience domestic violence, but women are far more likely to experience physical or sexual violence at the hands of men.
	However, I wish to reassure the House that the Government are facing up to our responsibilities, and I should like to outline some of the major steps that we are taking to respond to this most insidious of crimes in all parts of the country, including in the Thames Valley area. The Government take domestic violence very seriously, and that is why we have set up the inter-ministerial group on domestic violence. It is chaired by Baroness Scotland, and draws ministerial membership from across all the major Government Departments. The group performance manages the delivery plan and monitors its progress quarterly.
	As the right hon. Member for Maidenhead noted, we passed the Domestic Violence, Crime and VictimsAct 2004 in November of that year. The biggest overhaul of domestic violence legislation for 30 years, that Act gives tough new powers to the police and the courts to tackle offenders, while ensuring that victims get the support and protection that they need. We hope that that protection will help people across the country, including in the Thames Valley area.
	The 2004 Act gives greater protection to victims and children, and encourages them to stand up for their right to live without fear of violence. The measures that it contains have been rolling out in stages since March 2005.
	I turn now to the specific concerns about Thames Valley police expressed by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead. I should like to reassure the House that that force have initiated a fundamental overhaul of their policies and procedures in response to domestic violence cases. The Thames Valley police domestic violence project is nearing completion; the main changes have been implemented and the force is consolidating the improvements in its routine business. After some of the awful things that we have seen and that the right hon. Lady has highlighted, I hope that lessons have been learned and I trust that such initiatives offer some comfort and reassurance.
	The improvements include the establishment of public protection units throughout Thames Valley police. Those specialist units focus on protecting communities from the most dangerous offenders and provide expertise in cases involving the most vulnerable members of our society. The force's existing domestic violence units have been incorporated in the public protection units and augmented with additional investment and resources. Specialist domestic violence officers now review all domestic violence incidents.
	A comprehensive structured risk assessment process has been implemented. All operational officers have received training in identifying domestic violence cases and in the use of the risk indicator tool to assist their investigation and management of the case. Every case is assessed by a specialist domestic violence unit officer to ensure that high-risk cases are identified earlya point made by the right hon. Ladyand given added priority and resources.
	We need to ensure that action on stalking is included in those procedures. The right hon. Lady asked about guidance in such cases. The Association of Chief Police Officers has issued police forces with guidance on harassment, which includes stalking, so the hon. Lady can be reassured about that issue.
	The changes in the Thames Valley force are part of a much wider overhaul that has been instigated in all police forces. In November 2004, ACPO issued comprehensive guidance to all forces in England and Wales, including Thames Valley, about the investigation of domestic violence cases, including Thames Valley. The accompanying training programme covers identification and flagging of cases of domestic violence by the police; officer response at the scene of the incident to protect victims and to gather evidence; managing the investigation and building a prosecution case; protecting the victim as the case progresses through the criminal justice system and how to engage effectively in multi-agency working. I was most interested in the information from America provided by a relative of the family about multi-agency working. Perhaps the right hon. Lady and I could discuss that further when we meet. The police alone cannot tackle domestic violence; it requires a partnership response, although I am very aware that turning those words into reality is something else again.

Vernon Coaker: I thank the right hon. Lady for her welcome. We can certainly discuss the issue she raises. I am well aware that bureaucracy sometimes gets in the way of service delivery and in cases such as these we need to make sure that what we say in an office translates into reality on the ground for people who suffer, or may suffer, domestic violence.
	The training programme that I outlined is a major initiative in each police force area, including Thames Valley, and a target has been set to ensure that every operational officer in every police force in England and Wales will be a graduate of the programme by 2008. To complement it, every new recruit in every force will be trained about domestic violence as part of their mandatory training, as they have been since April 2005. Again, Thames Valley is obviously included in that programme. Such training is crucial to changing the culturechanging awareness and attitudes. All those things are important and will take longer than a training programme, but the programme is vital none the less.
	I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) is present in the Chamber. She has also taken a keen interest in these matters, including when she was a Home Office Minister, and we are building on much of the work in which she was involved.
	Every police force in England and Wales now also has a domestic violence co-ordinatorso the Thames Valley police will have such a co-ordinator as well. That illustrates the fact that the Government and the police recognise that domestic violence is a serious crime that needs to be policed rigorously and effectively, but our commitment to tackling domestic violence does not stop there. To ensure that we capitalise on the improved policing policy, the Crown Prosecution Service has also created a domestic violence training pack for all its prosecutors. It, too, has set a target of having all prosecutors trained on the programme by 2008 and every CPS area, including Thames Valley, now has a domestic violence co-ordinator.
	Last year, to strengthen the role of the criminal justice system further, the Government announced the development of 25 specialist domestic violence court systems, which will be in place by April 2006so they are obviously just in place. There will now be at least one specialist domestic violence court area in every region of the countryobviously, including the Thames valley. In this context, specialist courts are not just about the practice of courts and their procedures; neither are they about tangible changes being made to existing courthouses: it is an approach that situates the court system and the criminal justice system as part of a community-wide response to domestic violence. Clearly, such arrangements may cover parts of the Thames Valley area.
	I congratulate the right hon. Member for Maidenhead on initiating the debate. I am very happy to meet her to discuss what is clearly an issue of importance not just in the Thames Valley area but in the whole country and something about which we, as country, need to do more. This was a terrible case; we must learn the lessons from it. Thames Valley police, as well as all other forces, have reviewed their procedures, and we must all hope that, in so far as possible, such tragedies are avoided in the future. I thank the right hon. Lady again for raising the issue; I am sure that we all need to do something more about it.
	 The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker  adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	 Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes to Eight o'clock.

DEFERRED DIVISION

Conventions (joint Committee)